Introduction

Just as soldiers in a defensive position must face out to provide security and situational awareness, so too must Army face out to seek persistent international engagement and ensure that future readiness in a coalition is achieved. The ADF has always fought as part of a coalition. Therefore, interoperability with friends and partners is key to developing a force that can readily integrate within a coalition and thus is future ready. Interoperability, however, cannot be achieved with a once off or occasional exercise ending with photographs, handshakes and the exchange of challenge coins followed by Twitter posts. Achieving integration is a complex task that requires persistence and dedication. It goes hand in hand with the fostering and building of partnerships.

This article will argue that, to be future ready, Army must continue to adapt the way it builds and fosters partnerships with our friends and allies at the tactical level. It will identify that continued investment is required with our partners and suggest that these partnerships are built with small persistent teams. It will propose that Army’s international engagement should increase its focus on people-to-people links and small teams whilst still maintaining medium to large scale activities. The individuals and teams involved must understand their role and have a deliberate approach towards integration. Firstly, however, integration and interoperability must be defined.

ADF doctrine defines interoperability as ‘the ability of systems, units of forces to act together to provide services to or from, or exchange information with partner systems, units and forces’. Whilst integration is defined as the top level of interoperability, with the two lower levels being ‘compatible’ and ‘deconflicted’ (ADF, 2021, p. 85).

Future readiness requires investment and planning for anticipated conflicts that could occur five or ten years from now. This investment isn’t necessarily purely monetary. Judging by previous conflicts and operations, being future ready means being ready to fight within a coalition environment. Not only does this allow for force multipliers in capabilities but iron-clad and indivisible coalitions, networks and alliances provide a significant deterrence (Nicholson, 2022). Furthermore, Australia cannot depend solely upon the United States for the security of its near region but must be ready to work in a coalition environment.

Under its new strategy of ‘integrated deterrence’, the ‘United States will not rely on its strength alone but implement a framework for operating with allies in both conventional and non-conventional areas of conflict’ (King, 2022).

Additionally, under the Biden Administration’s expansive vision for Asia-Pacific deterrence, allies and partners will now be asked to contribute more toward shared security objectives (Hardy, 2021). As a result, Army must continue to invest in working with partner forces to achieve access, influence, deterrence and allowance for ease of interoperability.

Interoperability also enhances readiness for humanitarian aid and disaster relief. Two recent examples of integration augmenting domestic disaster response are that of the 2022 floods and the 2020 bushfires. The Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative is an opportunity for an enhancement of bilateral relationship with Singapore (Department of Defence, 2021). An immediate payoff of this engagement has been the use of Singaporean Chinooks to assist with flood relief during the 2022 northern New South Wales floods. During the 2020 bushfires, Papua New Guinea’s Defence Force engineers were able to work with ADF counterparts to provide route clearance activities throughout Victoria (ABC, 2019).

Therefore, relationships matter. The depth of the relationship enables integration not only in peacetime as shown here but also during conflict. The ability to integrate and deploy with partner forces is a result of international engagement at all levels.

International engagement occurs through service-to-service talks, large scale interaction during large exercises such as Exercise Talisman Sabre, unit and company level interactions such as those that occur on Exercise Southern Jackeroo or Exercise Tagata Toa, and in small exchanges. These activities allow for soldiers, commanders, and policy advisers to exercise together under common command and control (Hardy, 2021). All these interactions encourage personal interaction at all levels, from senior commanders down to the most junior soldiers and are deliberately designed in support of whole-of government foreign policy (Bourke, 2020). Military personnel have shared experiences which allows communication at professional levels when political relationships are laboured; when language differences exist, they are able to speak in the common language of soldiering. These people-to-people activities are the building blocks of interoperability.

There are many people-to-people activities in our near region. These provide access and influence, have a direct link to the ADF’s overall campaign plan all whilst forming the foundation of interoperability – thus achieving future readiness.

The Defence Cooperation Program (DCP) in Papua New Guinea has been partnered with the Papua New Guinea Defence Force since 1976 and has been a persistent area of international engagement since. Throughout this time, the DCP has been a key enabler for training, exercises and operations across the land, sea and air domain (DFAT, 2021). This partnership is further enhanced with Papua New Guinean Defence Force Officers attending the Royal Military College - Duntroon, Australian Command and Staff College, Defence Strategic Studies Course, etc. The payoff of this form of engagement is not always instantly apparent but, as Lieutenant General Rick Burr, former Chief of Army, asserted, ‘you don’t know how important these relationships are until you need them. But building trust takes time, consistency, and sincerity’ (Burr, 2016). The yield of people-to-people engagement in the form of small teams can be hugely asymmetric.

Small team exchanges present many opportunities. A team of section size or less on an international engagement exchange or acting as a training team can endure for longer than a company or platoon element, have a similar or enhanced impact and be more economically viable. Whereas a large element requires integral logistical support, in the context of international engagement, smaller elements can leverage off partner force facilities or commercial solutions for a lower overall cost whilst remaining engaged for a lengthier period.

For example, and anecdotally, a Wantok Warrior exchange of a company from the 1st or 3rd Battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment with the 1st or 2nd Battalions of the Royal Pacific Islands Regiment in Papua New Guinea will require significant monetary outlay from Defence, whilst a section level exchange for three months will cost multitudes less. The small team exchange presents more opportunity for engagement at a personnel level and offers priceless leadership opportunity for Army's junior soldiers and non- commissioned officers.

Humans will naturally tend to gravitate towards those with which they have common experiences and shared cultures. So too it is for soldiers. The personnel of a platoon or company sized element on international engagement will tend to associate with one another rather than seek interactions with foreign personnel. Such behaviour can be observed in personnel deployed on Rifle Company Butterworth or in Papua New Guinea on Wantok Warrior. To avoid this natural phenomenon, personnel must actively seek new exchanges and experiences.

This can be difficult for an 18-year-old soldier within a platoon of mates. A small team will remove these psychological barriers as the pressures felt from a large peer group are reduced and personnel in such a small group will naturally seek new interactions.

To further enhance integration, soldiers and commanders at all levels must make themselves approachable. By doing so they will encourage interactions with individuals from partner forces that will ultimately yield increased interoperability. This approachability is easily achievable through small teams. A large group of soldiers naturally presents a difficult obstacle for social interaction; it is an intimidating and difficult action for an individual to approach and socially engage a platoon or company sized element. By utilising small teams, either through individual international engagement deployments or through multiple touchpoints, partner forces are more likely to engage on both professional and social levels which will generate increased integration.

However, it is acknowledged that medium to large scale deployments into the region also provide ongoing access, influence, and deny competitors similar opportunities. A balance between small team engagements and large-scale activities must be met. As a result, it is recommended that Army maintains its medium to large scale international engagement activities whilst at the same time seeking to establish persistence small team engagement. This will ensure integration and influence at all levels.

Once off engagements are not enough. Nor is it suitable for periodic engagements with different personnel each time – requiring complete reestablishment of people-to-people links. Persistence at the individual level must be applied to maintain partnerships, interoperability and efficient integration. This requires Army, formations and units to identify key personnel for international engagement and ensure that they have continuous touch points with interlocutors from other nations not only during their posting tenure but throughout their entire career. Through this persistent style of engagement, Army will be able to maintain partnership and integration at all levels of commands.

Therefore, it is recommended that those that are selected and present the desirable attributes for international engagement, whether locally during a Talisman Sabre series, during a short mentor training team deployment or through overseas posting, be earmarked for similar engagements periodically throughout their careers.

This must be conducted as a hybrid approach, leveraging the abilities of those earmarked individuals whilst still seeking to provide opportunity to many within Defence. This will ensure and enhance integration, ultimately providing future readiness through interoperability with partners, friends, and allies.

Conclusion

This article has argued that Army should continue to adapt the way it builds partnerships and achieves integration. Partnerships enhance interoperability while also providing strategic deterrence. To enhance strategic partnerships, Army must look to persistent tactical actions from small teams and engagement with friends and partners at all levels. Small persistent teams who ‘face out not in’ are key to building and enriching partnerships which will allow Army to be ready to operate within coalitions in future conflicts and contingency response.